I'm pleased to see at least a few
critical and dissenting posts amongst this otherwise pretty
nauseating celebration of "progressive" Liberal-Left self-righteousness.

After sleeping on it, I realised who it is that
Dave's self-satisfied and self-promoting article reminds me of: Eric
Honecker, the former Communist Party leader of East Germany, or one of
his supporters, who were also immensely (and of course, quite
sincerely) proud of what they and their party had inflicted in their
own country and people. Not that Dave or his supporters will understand
the comparison, anymore than Eric Honeker and his supporters would have
done, all of them being so completely wrapped up in and convinced of
their own ideological world view.

What motivates those on the "progressive"
Liberal-Left to impose their ideology, their vision of
society, and the social engineering necessary for it (I'm thinking of
mass immigration and the multiracial/multicultural "melting pot" it has
created), on the rest of reluctant society, where they do not have the
obvious economic interests that capital does, but with which,
ironically, they have allied themselves?

Is it really - as they claim and no doubt
believe themselves - the noble desire for human betterment, or rather,
which I strongly suspect, the animal desire and satisfaction of
imposing THEIR will on others? Whether it be the "classless society"
that the Left has effectively given up on, or the "raceless (multi-mass
miscegenating) society", which has taken its place as their ideological
goal, what matters is that they are imposing THEIR will, rationalised
and justified, of course, as the way of social "progress" and
enlightened human development.

What the far Left and the far Right have in common
is the drive to impose their OWN will on the rest of society, with
force, if need be.They just come at it from different directions and
with different, covering ideologies.

The political Left has much in common with the
medieval church too, it seems to me, with their ideology and power
transcending national borders, and their claims to moral superiority
and leadership. And as with medieval clerics and lay fanatics, their
occupation of the "moral high ground" is not just a source of personal
satisfaction and superiority, but also binds them to an ideological "us
group" and is of considerable political, social and economic advantage.

I'm posting these ideas, not as my own ideological
truth (I'm not sure enough of myself for that), but to be chewed over
and tasted, by Dave and his supporters too, I hope.

Well done, [misteruseless],
for your advice on solving the formatting problem, and thank you! One can easily forget how important formatting is.

I think (although Dave and
his supporters will deny it, of course, even to themselves) that many
amongst the native population, especially whose of us who remember
former times, are "seething" at what Dave and his "progressive",
leftwing friends - in unlikely coalition with new and old capital and
with the institutions of the state - have inflicted upon them with mass
immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated
country, and with the creation of a multi-racial/multicultural
melting-pot society. It is just that most are too fearful, or too
polite (or, more likely, some combination of the two) to give
expression to it outside the secure and familiar circle of close
friends and family, since we all know what happens to those who do . .
. .

The generation which fought
to defeat Fascism (and GENUINE, Nazi racism) and then worked to create
a better, more just, humane and prosperous Britain, based on social
responsibility and solidarity, were betrayed from all sides, right
across the political spectrum, from left to right. I know, because my
own, not untypical, parents were amongst them. They trusted the
establishment, successive governments, the unions, the media, even
British business, to at least respect their fundamental interests, but
instead they were sold down the river by their fellow countrymen, just
as Africans were sold into slavery by fellow Africans - betrayed, and
beaten (although the mere threat was usually sufficient) with the
ideological stick of "anti-fascism" and "anti-racism" if they dared
complain publically about it.

Dave doesn't recognise my
analysis at all, of course, any more than Eric Honecker would have
recognised an honest analysis of conditions in East Germany.

Although many do not
recognise the betrayal - just as many Russians were (or still are)
unable to recognise or accept the truth about Stalin - or see only the
tip of the iceberg, with so much official and unofficial propaganda
denying it, it is no wonder that those who do recognise it, even
unclearly, are "seething".

I have done my share of
"seething", but seething doesn't get you anywhere, certainly nowhere I
want to go (i.e. on the road to violence or depression), so instead I
am trying to understand what is going on here: why this MADNESS and
unwitting betrayal by one's own brethren in the name of social
"progress"?

3rd Post

[attempt]: ". . . . the majority of Britons are feeling as if their
institutions are ignoring their strong emotions, and when that happens people
tend to take matters into their own hands. And that gets ugly."

The primary purpose of the state and its institutions is not, and never has
been, to serve "the people", but to exploit them. This may sound like loony-left
ideology, but in fact is a clear consequence of Darwin's theory of evolution and
human origins. It is just that for various reasons (which need to be understood)
it has been ignored, suppressed or denied. It is time we DID take things into
our own hands (which, thanks to the Internet and other technology, we now have
the means to actually DO).

There is no reason why things should "get ugly", unless those defending the
status quo, including the power structures of the state, choose to make it so.
The revolution I have in mind will be grassroots democratic (people taking
things into their own hands) and non-violent.